DREAM CASTLE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has come forward with the aforesaid prayer.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that it is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of real estate consultancy and agency and it is registered under the relevant service tax regulations and pays service tax on the services rendered by it. Its proprietor is a partner in M/s.RJK Investments, a firm, which entered into an agreement with M/s.DLF Home Development Ltd., a company for arranging the purchase of a large tract of land in Tamilnadu. The petitioner was authorised as partner of the firm to collect the monies from DLF to disburse the same to the land owners, the agents or RJK Investments itself. According to the petitioner, the respondent has held that the entire amount received by the petitioner, even though it was disbursed to third parties and the petitioner has acted as a mere conduit for payment of funds to the identified parties, is liable to service tax without considering any of the agreements or the bank account statements or other evidence produced by the petitioner.

(3.) SIMILARLY , he also drew the attention of this court to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONS OF CEMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANOTHER ( : AIR 1967 SC 1401) and the relevant portion is extracted below: -